France acknowledges Polynesian islands ‘strong-armed’ into dangerous nuclear tests, Telegraph UK Henry Samuel, Paris, 24 MAY 2019 France has officially acknowledged for the first time that French Polynesians were effectively forced into accepting almost 200 nuclear tests conducted over a 30-year period, and that it is responsible for compensating them for the illnesses caused by the fallout.

The French parliament issued the much-awaited admission in a bill reforming the status of the collectivity of 118 islands in the South Pacific, with MPs saying the change should make it easier for the local population to request compensation for cancer and other illnesses linked to radioactivity.

From 1966 to 1996, France carried out 193 nuclear tests around the paradise islands, including Bora Bora and Tahiti, immortalised by Paul Gauguin. Images of a mushroom cloud over the Moruroa atoll, one of two used as test sites along with Fangataufa, provoked international protests.

Charles De Gaulle and subsequent presidents had thanked French Polynesians for their role in assuring the grandeur of France by allowing it to conduct the tests.

But in the parliamentary bill, France acknowledges that the islands were “called upon” – effectively strong-armed – into accepting the tests for the purposes of “building (its) nuclear deterrent and national defence”.

It also stipulates that the French state will “ensure the maintenance and surveillance of the sites concerned” and “support the economic and structural reconversion of French Polynesia following the cessation of nuclear tests”.

Patrice Bouveret of the Observatoire des armements (Armaments Observatory), an independent organisation that has been assessing the impacts of French nuclear testing in Polynesia since 1984, welcomed the reform.

“It recognises the fact that local people’s health could have been affected and thus the French state’s responsibility in compensating them for such damage. Until now, the entire French discourse was that the tests were ‘clean’ – that was the actual word used – and that they had taken all due precautions for staff and locals.”

“In contrast to the Soviet Union, the United States has always maintained its ‘right’ to carry out a nuclear first strike. This has never changed and was reaffirmed by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter . . . on September 27, 2016.” – Diana Johnstone, From MAD to Madness.

There is not much hope for the retraction of this threat. On March 21, Reuters reported “Trump has said that while he would like to see nuclear weapons abolished, he wants the United States to have an unrivaled arsenal. He also said that the United States has ‘fallen behind’ in its nuclear capabilities, even though it is in the midst of a 30-year, $1.3 trillion drive to modernize what most experts agree is the world’s most powerful nuclear force.”

An insider’s memoir, From MAD to Madness, by Paul H. Johnstone, describing the persistence of the US nuclear threat has recently been published by Clarity Press. Johnstone was a senior analyst in the Strategic Weapons Evaluation Group in the Department of Defense, directing studies on the probable consequences of nuclear war, to us and to them, and also an author of The Pentagon Papers.

He died in 1981, leaving his memoir to his daughter, author (and CounterPunch contributor) Diana Johnstone. He had previously served in World War II as an evaluator of Japanese enemy targets, but as Diana says here: “Hiroshima changed the nature of targeting dramatically, and that is the story my father tells in his memoir.”

In this book Diana has finally published his “Memoir of a Humanist in the Pentagon,” along with her added commentary and a foreword by Paul Craig Roberts. Roberts expresses in a nutshell the contemporary horrific relevance of the book: “The neoconservatives in pursuit of their goal of US world hegemony have resurrected the possibility of nuclear war. The neocons have taken us from MAD to madness.”

The neocons are not some far-right fringe group; they represent the mainstream of US foreign policy in recent Democratic and Republican administrations. The political use of the nuclear threat has a long history. It was inaugurated by the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a political decision opposed by the military. Admiral Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote: “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . .

” The Truman Doctrine (1947) indicated that there were no regrets. It stated in effect that any country that appeared to be adopting a communist form of government, whether through outside intervention, civil war, or ordinary elections, would be subject to whatever punishment the United States chose to inflict, not excluding nuclear attack.

Johnstone traces the “breather” in our policy characterized by MAD—the idea that Mutually Assured Destruction: a path to mutual suicide—was a deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons. This realization by our government occurred once Soviet nuclear capability became obvious. However, as Roberts notes, after the Soviet collapse in the 1990s the US “resurrected nuclear weapons as usable weapons of war. The Obama regime . . . authorized a trillion dollar expenditure for nuclear weapons, and US war doctrine elevated nukes from a retaliatory role to pre-emptive first strike.”

Roberts, who was United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Reagan in 1981, maintains that Reagan and Gorbachev “eliminated the risk of Armageddon by negotiating the end of the Cold War.”…….

The military and the increasingly gigantic industries equipping it wanted bases everywhere, and somewhat plausible threats that would justify annual upgrading of the lethal arsenal. Wars now and then that would enable testing and destruction of weapons were also useful for the advancement of warriors and profits of contractors. Furthermore, revolutions that were allowed to succeed and improve the lives of people might create imitators in our land of vast wealth accompanied by astounding poverty and misery.

Yet neither Roberts nor Johnstone discusses the role of multinational corporations and the military- industrial complex in motivating and perpetuating the post-WWII Cold War. They attributed major influence on US policy to anti-Soviet émigrés (Kissinger, Brzezinski and others) from Eastern Europe. A high-level Air Force intelligence “Special Studies Group,” headed by a Hungarian émigré “expert” predicted in every annual appraisal that there would be “a massive Russian land attack on Western Europe the following year.”

The worldwide cold war between capitalism and socialism continues—in Cuba, among other places—and there is now also the megalomaniac goal of world hegemony. The projected attack by the now-capitalist Russia is still awaited, despite indications that the Russians want to eliminate the specter of civilization’s total nuclear destruction.

Johnstone’s sober prediction in From MAD to Madness: “there can be no victor in a nuclear war” must be given priority by the newly-awakened activists. The abolition of nuclear weapons would be a step towards sanity.: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/05/this-madness-deserves-a-protest-an-inside-account-at-us-nuclear-weapons-strategy/

Trump prepared to bypass Congress on Saudi arms sale: senators
Democrats warn Trump may use ’emergency’ loophole to sell missiles to Saudi Arabia without congressional approval. Aljazeera, by William Roberts, 24 May 2019Washington, DC – Democrats in the United StatesSenate have warned that the Trump administration is preparing to approve a major new arms sale to Saudi Arabia, using an “emergency” loophole to bypass Congress.

“I am expecting that the administration is going to notice a major arms sale through emergency powers,” Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat, told Al Jazeera on Thursday, after he said an administration official gave the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “informal notice” of the forthcoming announcement.

US arms control law allows Congress to reject weapons sales to foreign countries but an exemption in the law allows the president to waive the need for congressional approval by declaring a national security emergency. …..

‘Terrible mistake’

Senator Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who has previously blocked missile sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, warned the administration would be making “a terrible mistake”.

In a statement, Menendez said he would “pursue all appropriate legislative and other means to nullify” the planned sale and he warned US weapons makers could be subject to criminal and civil penalties if they export weapons under “potentially invalid licenses”.

Calling Saudi Arabia “one of the worst human rights abusers in the world”, Menendez said the US’s reputation would suffer from “delivering deadly weapons to governments that clearly intend to misuse them”. …….

Trump’s threats to use military force in Iran and the use of force itself are illegal under the United Nations Charter and the War Powers Resolution.Marjorie Cohn, Truthout 25 May 19,
President Donald Trump, National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rattle their sabers, there is no evidence that Iran poses a threat to the United States. It was Trump who threatened genocide, tweeting, “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran.” The Pentagon is now considering sending 10,000 additional troops to the Gulf region for “defensive” purposes and not in response to a new threat by Iran. Threats to use military force — like the use of force itself — violate U.S. and international law.Last week, Pompeo said U.S. intelligence had determined that Iranian-sponsored attacks on U.S. forces “were imminent.” The Trump administration asserted, “without evidence,” according to The New York Times, that new intelligence revealed Iran was sponsoring proxy groups to attack U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria.

The Pentagon announced its intention to deploy a Patriot antimissile battery to the Middle East. Three days later, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said the United States would send up to 120,000 troops to the region if Iran attacks U.S. forces or speeds up work on nuclear weapons.

But on May 14, Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, a senior British military official and deputy commander of the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS, told reporters at the Pentagon that “there has been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq or Syria.”

The U.S. and Israel Plan Regime Change in IranThe Trump administration and its close ally Israel have long had their sights on regime change in Iran…….

The U.S., Not Iran, Is Acting AggressivelyThe New York Times cites military and intelligence officials in the U.S. and Europe who maintain that during the past year, “most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran, but in Washington” where Bolton “has prodded President Trump into backing Iran into a corner.” Bolton “has repeatedly called for American military strikes against Tehran,” The New York Times reported.

Pompeo listed 12 demands Iran must meet to secure a new nuclear agreement. “Taken together, the demands would require a complete transformation by Iran’s government, and they hardened the perception that the administration is really seeking regime change,” according to The Associated Press.

The Pentagon has planned a high-intensity air war against Iran that Israel and the Saudis might very well join. The plan calls for over 2,300 air strikes against Iranian strategic targets: airfields and naval bases, arms and petroleum, oil and lubricant depots, telecommunication nodes, radar, factories, military headquarters, ports, water works, airports, missile bases and units of the Revolutionary Guards.

Trump’s reckless withdrawal from the nuclear deal actually increases the chances Iran will develop a nuclear program. After complying with the JCPOA for a year after Trump pulled out of it, Iran is now threatening to resume high enrichment of uranium, which it had agreed to halt under the deal.Trump’s threats to use military force in Iran and the use of force itself are illegal under the United Nations Charter and the War Powers Resolution.

The U.S. Violates the United Nations CharterRatified treaties are “the supreme law of the land” under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. That means their provisions constitute U.S. law. The United Nations Charter, which the U.S. ratified in 1945, is therefore binding domestic law.

In Article 2, the Charter provides, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

The only exception to the Charter’s prohibition on the threat or use of force is when a country acts in self-defense or with the approval of the U.N. Security Council.

Countries may engage in individual or collective self-defense only in the face of an armed attack, under Article 51 of the Charter. Iran has not mounted an armed attack against the United States. Under the well-established Caroline case, there must exist “a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”

Pompeo’s claim that Iranian-sponsored attacks will “imminently” occur against U.S. forces remains unsubstantiated. Nothing in the Charter allows a U.N. member country to unilaterally decide to use military force unless it does so in self-defense. If the United States were to attack and/or invade Iran, it would be acting unlawfully and not in self-defense.

Violation of the War Powers ResolutionA U.S. attack on Iran would also violate the War Powers Resolution. Congress enacted that law to reclaim its constitutional authority to send U.S. troops into combat after the disastrous Vietnam War. The resolution allows the president to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities in only three situations:

First, when Congress has declared war, which it has not done since World War II. Second, in the event of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces,” which has not occurred. Third, when Congress has enacted “specific statutory authorization,” such as an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). There is no AUMF or other congressional statute authorizing the use of military force in Iran.

After the September 11 attacks, Congress passed an AUMF, authorizing the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

Plan to rescue Ohio’s nuclear plants won’t aid wind, solar AP News By JOHN SEEWER 24 MY 19 TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) — Adding a new charge on every electricity bill in Ohio would provide a financial rescue to the state’s two struggling nuclear plants, but would come at the expense of wind and solar energy projects.Republican members of an Ohio House committee on Thursday approved the proposal that would generate nearly $200 million each year mostly for the nuclear plants, which are in danger of closing without help from the state.

The plan revised over the past few days after weeks of debate would no longer allow renewable energy projects to seek the same type of clean air incentives being offered to the nuclear plants.

It also would eliminate mandates that promote the use of wind and solar power.

Democrats on the House Energy and Resources Committee voted against the plan, which will now go the Ohio House for a vote.

The legislation would put a $1 monthly charge on all residential electricity bills starting in 2021 while businesses and industrial users would pay more — anywhere from $15 to $2,500 per month.

Republicans who control the committee also added this week a provision that would allow the owners of two-coal fired power plants to charge customers to fund operations of the plants.

Councillors to get briefing from nuclear panel https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/17663707.councillors-to-get-briefing-from-nuclear-panel/By John Connell @JConnell35 Reporter 24 May 19, NEW councillors appointed to Copeland council’s nuclear panel will receive their first briefing early next month.The Strategic Nuclear Energy team is one of the authority’s most important committees, working with the Government and companies including Sellafield.

The first meeting since borough council elections will be held on Tuesday June 4 and will see members given an overview of the roles and responsibilities of the committee.

Members will be discussing some huge issues in the coming months including the Government’s search for a host community for a nuclear waste store.

Anyone with a reasonably-sized patch of land can volunteer it as a contender for the multi-million Geological Disposal Facility (GDF), effectively kick-starting the process.

West Cumbria has also been rocked in recent months by the collapse of the Moorside nuclear investment deal, while Sellafield is moving into the decommissioning phase.

Coun David Moore, Portfolio holder for Nuclear and Corporate Services, said the briefing would be an opportunity for councillors who have not worked on the panel before or were completely new to local politics to get to grip with the scope of the committee’s important work.

He added: “Some of the councillors who will be there are first-time councillors, just about to dip a toe in the water. This meeting them will give them an overview and it will be a learning curve for them.

“We are key players in nuclear consultations. Not many councils have an equivalent of our committee. I have no equivalent to my role as nuclear portfolio-holder.”

ISLAMABAD — VOICE OF AMERICA, 24 May 19,Pakistan says it has successfully conducted a “training launch” of a ballistic missile capable of carrying both nuclear and conventional warheads up to 1,500 kilometers.

The move came amid Pakistan’s heightened military tensions with neighboring rival India, and it is seen by observers as part of the efforts Islamabad is making to keep pace with New Delhi’s massive investments in military hardware and advancements…….

Pakistan has already test-fired the Shaheen-III nuclear-capable missile with a range of up to 1,700 miles, enabling it to strike all corners of India and reach deep into the Middle East, including Israel.

Thursday’s missile launch came a day after Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi spoke briefly with his Indian counterpart, Sushma Swaraj, on the sidelines of a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization member states in Kyrgyzstan. Following what he said was an informal interaction with Swaraj, Qureshi said he conveyed Pakistan’s readiness to engage in a dialogue with India to resolve all bilateral matters through negotiations.

“We want to live like good neighbors and settle our outstanding issues through talks,” he said.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced in March the country had shot down a satellite in low orbit, making it the fourth country, after the United States, China and Russia, to have used an anti-satellite weapon.

Islamabad had criticized the move as a “matter of grave concern” and a militarization of space by New Delhi.

In the backdrop of India’s recent anti-satellite tests, Pakistan announced Wednesday it has signed a joint document with Russia on no-first placement of weapons in outer space. An official statement said the two countries have agreed to “make all possible efforts to prevent outer space from becoming an arena for military confrontation and to ensure security in our space activities.”

Analysts estimate that both the South Asian rivals possess about 100 nuclear warheads each.

TO THE WESTERN SHOSHONE NATION, THIS LAND IS SACRED. TO STORE NUCLEAR WASTE HERE IS TO PRESS A DOOMSDAY BUTTON.

Ed Komenda, Reno Gazette Journal 24 May 19, “……….. “This is our church,” says Bobb, the 67-year-old chief of the Western Shoshone National Council. “All we have to do is pray.”

Seven tents and travelers from as far as South Dakota and Washington dot this camp less than a mile from armed men in camouflage guarding the Nevada National Security Site – a 1,360-square-mile desert patch 65 miles north of Las Vegas where scientists decades ago detonated more than 900 nuclear bombs, assaulting the horizon with mushroom clouds.

Off the Mercury exit of U.S. Highway 95 is a yellow road sign topped with flashing lights: “DEMONSTRATORS ON ROADWAY.”

Another 35 miles northwest is the reason those demonstrators are here: The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.

To the Western Shoshone Nation, this land is sacred. To store nuclear waste here is to press a doomsday button.

“It will poison everything,” the elder says. “It’s people’s life, our Mother Earth’s life, all the living things here, all the creatures; whatever’s crawling around, it’s their life too.”……

A long, protracted battle’

The fight to prevent federal dollars from flowing into the Yucca Mountain project runs tandem to the push to license the land as a dumping ground.

In January, Gov. Steve Sisolak promised “not one ounce” of nuclear waste would enter Yucca Mountain under his administration.

Last week, it appeared another hurdle had been cleared to help him keep that promise. A Department of Energy funding bill released on May 14 showed no money set aside to bankroll nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain. The absent dollars marked a small victory for Nevada House Democrats – including Rep. Dina Titus, who met with Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week to talk about halting funding.

“This has been a long, protracted battle,” Titus told the USA TODAY Network. “Some people say it’s a marathon and not a dash – but I’d say right now we’re in a pivotal moment.”…..

The Trump administration now favors storing the nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain – and Trump has support from members of Congress looking to rid their own waste from nuclear facilities in their home districts.

“It’s get it out of my backyard and into somebody else’s,” Titus said.

The bill died, never making it to the Senate floor – but it made its return to the House last week.

Illinois Republican John Shimkus co-sponsored the reintroduction of the bill, pegging nuclear power as an essential component to addressing climate change….. n an interview with the USA Today Network, Shimkus characterized Yucca Mountain as a “pretty good” and “secure” location for nuclear waste.

“If Yucca Mountain was where the capital is – yeah,” Shimkus said, “I could understand some concerns and some frustration.”…… “We’re trying to get money for that final scientific debate and argument. My friends, the Nevadans, continue to say it’s unsafe… but let’s have the science debated.”

Environmental Working GroupMay. 23, 2019 09: By Grant Smith, From 2009 to 2012, Gregory Jaczko was chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which approves nuclear power plant designs and sets safety standards for plants. But he now says that nuclear power is too dangerous and expensive — and not part of the answer to the climate crisis.

“Nuclear power was supposed to save the planet,” Jaczko wrote in a recent op-ed for The Washington Post. As an atomic physicist, he once endorsed that view. But his years on the NRC ­changed his mind:

This tech is no longer a viable strategy for dealing with climate change, nor is it a competitive source of power. It is hazardous, expensive and unreliable, and abandoning it wouldn’t bring on climate doom. The real choice now is between saving the planet and saving the dying nuclear industry. I vote for the planet.

Jaczko describes how his experience revealed the pervasive political influence of the nuclear power industry in Congress and among his fellow commissioners. Their opposition derailed much of the safety measures he proposed in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. In 2011 an investigative series by the Associated Press detailed the collusion between regulators and the industry to weaken safety standards to keep existing plants economically viable.

Jaczko’s efforts to protect the American public likely cost him his career at the NRC. He now leads an offshore wind power startup and is speaking out at an important juncture for the nation’s energy future.

Electric utilities that operate nuclear plants are boasting of being “carbon free” by mid-century. They insist that their aging nuclear plants must be part of the equation to keep costs down. But even though Japan closed most of its reactors after Fukushima, carbon emissions went down, because the Japanese ramped up energy efficiency and solar investments.

“It turns out that relying on nuclear energy is actually a bad strategy for combating climate change,” Jaczko wrote. “One accident wiped out Japan’s carbon gains. Only a turn to renewables and conservation brought the country back on target.”

Jaczko’s heightened concern for a nuclear accident in the U.S. is also well founded. The former director of the nuclear safety project at Union of Concerned Scientists, David Lochbaum, determined that the industry’s efforts to continue to run aging nuclear plants 20 to 30 years or even longer than their initial licenses allowed for is akin to playing Russian roulette.

Since Fukushima, Germany has ordered the shutdown of all nuclear plants by 2022. Japan has reopened only a few reactors. Even France, long a champion of nuclear power, is ramping down its nuclear fleet because of safety concerns. But in the U.S., the Trump administration and lawmakers in some states continue to support taxpayer-financed subsidies to bail out money-losing nuclear plants. On grounds of both economics and safety, that’s a fool’s bet.

North Korea said Friday that nuclear talks with the United States “will never be resumed” unless Washington halts what Pyongyang said were “hostile acts” and demands of “unilateral disarmament,” warning of a “fiercer” response if this continues.

In a statement carried by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency, an unidentified Foreign Ministry spokesman delivered Pyongyang’s latest warning to the U.S. in the wake of President Donald Trump’s failed summit with leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi in February.

“We hereby make it clear once again that the United States would not be able to move us even an inch with the device it is now weighing in its mind, and the further its mistrust and hostile acts towards the DPRK grow, the fiercer our reaction will be,” the spokesman said, using the acronym for the North’s formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

“Unless the United States puts aside the current method of calculation and comes forward with a new method of calculation, the DPRK-U.S. dialogue will never be resumed and by extension, the prospect for resolving the nuclear issue will be much gloomy,” the spokesman said.

Chernobyl vs. Fukushima: Which Nuclear Meltdown Was the Bigger Disaster? Live Science By Mindy Weisberger, Senior Writer | May 24, 2019 The new HBO series “Chernobyl” dramatizes the accident and horrific aftermath of a nuclear meltdown that rocked the Ukraine in 1986. Twenty-five years later, another nuclear catastrophe would unfold in Japan, after the magnitude 9.0 Tohoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami triggered a disastrous system failure at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.Both of these accidents released radiation; their impacts were far-reaching and long-lasting.

Only one reactor exploded at Chernobyl, while three reactors experienced meltdowns at Fukushima. Yet the accident at Chernobyl was far more dangerous, as damage to the reactor core unspooled very rapidly and violently, said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist and acting director for the Union of Concerned Scientists Nuclear Safety Project.

“As a result, more fission products were released from the single Chernobyl core,” Lyman told Live Science. “At Fukushima the cores overheated and melted but did not experience violent dispersal, so a much smaller amount of plutonium was released.”

In both accidents, radioactive iodine-131 posed the most immediate threat, but with a half-life of eight days, meaning half of the radioactive material decayed within that time, its effects soon dissipated. In both meltdowns, the long-term hazards arose primarily from strontium-90 and cesium-137, radioactive isotopes with half-lives of 30 years.

And Chernobyl released far more cesium-137 than Fukushima did, according to Lyman.

“About 25 petabecquerels (PBq) of cesium-137 was released to the environment from the three damaged Fukushima reactors, compared to an estimate of 85 PBq for Chernobyl,” he said (PBq is a unit for measuring radioactivity that shows the decay of nuclei per second).

What’s more, Chernobyl’s raging inferno created a towering plume of radioactivity that dispersed more widely than the radioactivity released by Fukushima, Lyman added.

Sickness, cancer and death

At Chernobyl, two plant workers were killed by the initial explosion and 29 more workers died from radiation poisoning over the next three months, Time reported in 2018. Many of those who died had knowingly exposed themselves to deadly radiation as they worked to secure the plant and prevent further leaks. Government officials relocated an estimated 200,000 people from the region, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In the years that followed, cancers in children skyrocketed in the Ukraine, up by more than 90%, according to Time. A report issued by United Nations agencies in 2005 approximated that 4,000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from Chernobyl. Greenpeace International estimated, in 2006, that the number of fatalities in the Ukraine, Russia and Belarus could be as high as 93,000 people, with 270,000 people in those countries developing cancers who otherwise would not have done so……..

radiation levels around Chernobyl can vary widely. Aerial drone surveys revealed in May that radiation in Ukraine’s Red Forest was concentrated in previously unknown “hotspots,” which scientists outlined in the region’s most accurate radiation maps to date.

The Fukushima nuclear power plant is still open and active (though the reactors that exploded remain closed); nonetheless, ongoing concerns about safety linger. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) recently announced that it would not hire foreign workers coming to Japan under newly relaxed immigration rules……. https://www.livescience.com/65554-chernobyl-vs-fukushima.html

As nuclear weapons risk escalates, debate grows about ‘vintage’ US arsenal, By Hollie McKay | Fox News, 24 May 19,The threat of a nuclear weapon being used is higher now than at any point since the conclusion the World War ll, a top United Nations security expert cautioned this week, calling the matter an “urgent” one that requires global attention.

Renata Dwan, director of the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research warned in Geneva that the heightened risk comes in large part as a result of disarmament negotiations that have chilled during a two-decade stalemate. But Dwan says the threat is also amplified by the increasing competition between nuclear-armed U.S. and China and other nuke-capable nations issuing plans for modernization.

But how does the arsenal of American — the only country to use a nuke against an enemy — compare to those other states?

“Other nuclear-armed states, notably Russia and China, are upgrading their arsenals and have tested, produced and deployed more brand-new weapons than the United States over the past decade,” Kingston Reif, Director of Disarmament and Threat Reduction Policy at the Arms Control Association, told Fox News. “But this does not mean the U.S. has fallen behind. The U.S. military has refurbished and improved nearly all of its existing strategic and tactical delivery systems and many of the warheads they carry, too, last well beyond their planned service life.”

As it stands, nine countries are known to possess nuclear weapons: the U.S., China, Russia, U.K, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, and murkily, North Korea. However, only the first three countries are believed to possess what is known as the “nuclear triad,” a three-pronged structure that consists of missiles that can be launched from land, air and sea.

Harry Kazianis, a senior director at the Center for National Interest, stressed that while many parts of America’s nuclear arsenal are quite old and were designed decades ago, the U.S. “clearly possesses the most advanced and sophisticated atomic arsenal on the planet.”

“Washington’s nuclear weapons arsenal is so powerful it could bring to an end any nation on the planet in less than 60 minutes if it wanted to—and kill billions of people in the process,” he acknowledged. “That amount of power is almost impossible for the mind to fathom, but it is a reality.”

The Trump administration, however, is proposing to broaden the circumstances under which the United States would consider the first use of nuclear weapons, develop two new sea-based, low-yield nuclear options — and laying the groundwork to grow the size of the arsenal, Reif pointed out.

In addition, the administration has announced the United States will leave the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in August 2019 and expressed hostility towards extending the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty,” Reif said. “In short, the administration is preparing to compete in a new nuclear arms race while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of such a contest.”

But the biggest issue Washington has to contend with when it comes to nuclear upgrade ambitions — bigger than Russia, China or North Korea — is cost.

Mark Olson, a defense consultant and former Lieutenant Commander, Combat Systems Officer, and Missile Defense Expert with extensive experience in European Ballistic Missile Defense, noted that the Congressional Budget Office estimates nuclear weapons spending will cost taxpayers $1.2 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars between fiscal years 2017-2046, or 6 percent of national defense spending.

COLUMBUS, Ohio—Ohio House Republicans on Wednesday dramatically transformed a controversial “clean-energy” subsidy bill, turning it into a bailout plan for both nuclear and coal power plants owned by Ohio companies.

The changes to House Bill 6, made by the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would also end Ohio’s much-disputed renewable-energy and energy-efficiency mandates for utilities after this year, which cost residential electricity users an average of about $4.60 per month. Instead, residential customers statewide would pay up to $1 per month into an estimated $190 million “Ohio Clean Air Program” fund, most of which would go to help keep open the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear plants, owned by FirstEnergy Solutions……..

A further change made to the bill would enshrine in state law an Ohio Supreme Court ruling that the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation could charge ratepayers to subsidize two OVEC coal-fired power plants — one in Ohio, the other in Indiana. House Republicans from southern and southeast Ohio have been pushing for years for the Piketon-based company (which is jointly owned by several electrical utilities) to receive such subsidies.

House Speaker Larry Householder, a Perry County Republican who’s made HB6 a priority, told reporters Wednesday that allowing the subsidies are the “right thing to do,” as OVEC has carried on costs to take care of the now-closed Piketon uranium enrichment plant.

Vitale said the committee may vote as soon as Thursday on sending HB6 to the House floor. But it remains to be seen whether Householder has enough “yes” votes for it to pass the House……

Boggs said House Democrats not only sought to keep Ohio’s mandate that utilities must obtain 12.5 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2027 – they proposed raising those standards to 50 percent by 2050 (half of which would have to come from renewable energy sources from within Ohio).

The auxiliary systems onboard the Yasen-M class submarine “Kazan” do not meet the Defense Ministry’s requirements. Moscow Times, 24 May 19, By The Barents Observer

The delivery of Russia’s most expensive and technically advanced nuclear submarine to the Russian Navy is being delayed by design flaws, Russian media have reported.

“Kazan” (K-561) is the first modernized multipurpose submarine of the Yasen-M class after “Severodvinsk” was handed over to the Northern Fleet in 2013. There are considerable changes in the auxiliary systems on “Kazan” compared with “Severodvinsk.” While construction on “Severodvinsk” started just after the breakup of the U.S.S.R. in 1993, “Kazan” was laid down 16 years later, in 2009.

Serious technical challenges will need to be fixed before the Sevmash yard in Arkhangelsk region can hand the submarine over for active duty, several Russian media have reported.

“According to the results of mooring tests, as well as the test sailings during the winter, it was concluded that a number of auxiliary parts and assemblies of the vessel do not meet the tactical and technical requirements set by the Defense Ministry,” a source in the defense industry was quoted by the state-run TASS news agency as saying……..

When completed, the Yasen-M class submarines will be able to carry the advanced sea versions of the Kalibr and Onyz cruise missiles, in addition to mines and torpedoes. Some of these weapons can be armed with nuclear warheads. ….

U.S. Department of Energy Further Advances Nuclear Energy Technology through Awards of $10.6 Million , MAY 23, 2019 WASHINGTON, D.C.– The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced funding selectees for multiple domestic advanced nuclear technology projects. Three projects in three states will receive varying amounts for a total of approximately $11 million in funding. The projects are cost-shared and will allow industry-led teams, including participants from federal agencies, public and private laboratories, institutions of higher education, and other domestic entities, to advance the state of U.S. commercial nuclear capability.The awards are through the Office of Nuclear Energy’s (NE) funding opportunity announcement (FOA) U.S. Industry Opportunities for Advanced Nuclear Technology Development. This is the fourth round of funding through this FOA. The first group was announced on April 27, the second group was announced on July 10, the third group was announced on November 13, 2018, and the fourth groupwas announced on March 27, 2019. The total of the five rounds of awards is approximately $128 million. Subsequent quarterly application review and selection processes will be conducted over the next four years.

“There are a lot of U.S. companies working on technologies to make the next generation of nuclear reactors safer and highly competitive, and private-public partnerships will be key to accomplishing this goal,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry. “The Trump Administration is committed to reviving and revitalizing the U.S. nuclear industry, and these partnerships are needed to help successfully develop innovative domestic nuclear technologies.”

The prior version of the bill would have cost residential customers about $2.50 a month or $300 million a year with the money going mostly to the nuclear plants but also to other resources that do not produce carbon dioxide emissions, like wind and solar.

Democrats on the House committee opposed the removal of the credit for renewable resources and the speed at which the bill was proceeding through the legislature.

The bill could be voted on by the full House as soon as May 29, according to analysts at Height Capital Markets in Washington.

The solicitation is broken into three funding pathways:

First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) Nuclear Demonstration Readiness Project pathway, intended to address major advanced reactor design development projects or complex technology advancements for existing plants which have significant technical and licensing risk and have the potential to be deployed by the mid-to-late 2020s.

Advanced Reactor Development Projects pathway, which allows a broad scope of proposed concepts and ideas that are best suited to improving the capabilities and commercialization potential of advanced reactor designs and technologies.